NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carroll R. Daugherty when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That the current agreement was violated when two Pennsylvania Railroad electricians were assigned on July 29, 1951 to apply cog belts to Pullman Car SYCAMORE FALLS; also, generator fuse to Pullman Car BARREN RIVER.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sometime after 1:30 A. M. on July 29, 1951, two electricians employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company were assigned to apply cog belts to Pullman car SYCAMORE FALLS; also, applied generator fuse to Pullman car BARREN RIVER.
Pullman Company ELectrician S. J. Bak employed on the 5:30 P. M. to 1:30 A. M. shift was available to perform this work on July 29, 1951, if called.
The agreement effective July 1, 1948, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that Rules 2, 5(b) and 37 of the current agreement were violated when other than Pullman Company electricians were assigned to perform electrical work on Pullman cars SYCAMORE FALLS and BARREN RIVER on July 29, 1951.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On July 29, 1951, Pennsylvania Railroad train No. 41 arrived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at 1:39 A. M., with cog belts in Pullman car SYCAMORE FALLS and a generator fuse in Pullman car BARREN RIVER in need of replacement or repair. A Pullman electrician having gone off duty at 1:30 A. M. of that date and no other Pullman electrician having been immediately available, the necessary work was performed by railroad electricians.
The facts involved in this dispute are essentially similar to those of record in the case decided by our Award No. 1601. Applying to the instant facts the principles and reasoning set forth in our Awards Nos. 1601 and 1622, we find that the carrier violated the parties' agreement, its violation could have been made adequately subject to its control, and the organization's claim should be allowed at pro rata rates of pay.